Abstract
In this chapter, we provide a rich description of the research site and the methodology which guided this research. We have developed an ethnographic approach to participatory action research in this project, and this framework draws its theoretical force from the concept of communicative ecology. We argue that in examining children’s media engagements and how these influence them, it is important to develop culturally sensitive methodologies of data collection and intervention. We also reflect on the challenges of developing an ethnographic and participatory approach to conducting action research with children from vulnerable background. This chapter offers a methodological framework which can be deployed by other researchers and educators with minor modifications for conducting similar studies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
We have used pseudonyms for all the villages included as research sites in our work. As the study deals with the topic of religious politics and discriminatory practices, it is crucial to protect the study participants from any untoward harm and/or threats.
- 2.
A Gram Panchayat (village council) is a formalized system of local self-governance in the villages and smaller towns of India. It is headed by a sarpanch who is the elected representative from the village/town.
References
Altheide, D. L. (1994). An ecology of communication: Toward a mapping of the effective environment. The Sociological Quarterly, 35(4), 665–683.
Avila-Saavedra, G. (2013). Neither here nor there: Consumption of US media among pre-adolescent girls in Ecuador. Interactions: Studies in Communication & Culture, 4(3), 136–152.
Bakardjieva, M. (2010). The internet and subactivism: Cultivating young citizenship in everyday life. In T. Olsson & P. Dahlgren (Eds.), Young people, ICTs, and democracy: Theories, policies, identities and websites (pp. 129–146). Goteborg, Sweden: Nordicom, University of Gothenburg.
Banaji, S. (2015). Behind the high-tech fetish: Children, work and media use across classes in India. The International Communication Gazette, 77(6), 577–599.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Davison, R. M., Ou, C., Martinsons, M., Zhao, A., & Du, R. (2014). The communicative ecology of Web 2.0 at work: Social networking in the workspace. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(10), 2035–2047.
Fish, S. (1980). Is there a text in this class. Cambridge, UK: Harvard University Press.
Foth, M., & Hearn, G. (2007). Networked individualism of urban residents: Discovering the communicative ecology in inner-city apartment buildings. Information, Communication & Society, 10(5), 749–772.
Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. New York, NY: Seabury Press.
Giroux, H. A. (1992). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education. New York: Routledge.
Hill, J. (2011). Endangered childhoods: How consumerism is impacting child and youth identity. Media, Culture and Society, 33(3), 347–362.
Hoechsmann, M., & Poyntz, S. (2012). Media literacies: A critical introduction. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Jenkins, H., Shresthova, S., Gamber-Thompson, L., Kligler-Vilenchik, N., & Zimmerman, A. (2016). By any media necessary: The new youth activism. New York; NY: New York University Press.
Lankshear, C. (1997). Changing literacies, changing education. New York: Open University Press.
Lemish, D. (2015). Children and media: A global perspective. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Lennie, J., & Tacchi, J. (2013). Evaluating communication for development: A framework for social change. Abingdon: Routledge.
Livingstone, S. (2009). Children and the internet: Great expectations, challenging realities. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Livingstone, S., & Haddon, L. (2009). Young people in the European digital media landscape: A statistical overview. Goteborg, Sweden: International Clearinghouse on Children, Youth and Media.
McLaren, P. (1995). Critical pedagogy and predatory culture: Oppositional politics in a postmodern era. New York, NY: Routledge.
Meyrowitz, J. (1984). The adultlike child and the childlike adult: Socialization in an electronic world. Daedalus, 113(3), 19–48.
Pathak-Shelat, M., & DeShano, C. (2013). Digital youth cultures in small town and rural Gujarat, India. New Media and Society, 16(6), 983–1001.
Rangaswamy, N., Nair, S., & Toyama, K. (2008). “My TV is the family oven/toaster/grill”: Personalizing TV for the Indian audience. In Proceeding of the 1st International Conference on Designing Interactive User Experiences for TV and Video—uxtv ’08. Silicon Valley, CA, USA.
Slater, D. (2013). New media, development and gobalization: Making connections in the global south. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Velde, J. (2012). From liminal to liminoid: Eminem’s trickstering. Bergen: University of Bergen.
Williamson, K. M., & Brown, K. (2014). Collective voices: Engagement of Hartford community residents through participatory action research. The Qualitative Report, 19(36), 1–14.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bhatia, K.V., Pathak-Shelat, M. (2019). Methods and Analysis. In: Challenging Discriminatory Practices of Religious Socialization among Adolescents. Palgrave Pivot, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29574-5_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29574-5_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-29573-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-29574-5
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)